New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-09-27
THE JUDGES REVIEW OF THE CASE.
POINTS BROUGHT oUT IN THE OPINIONS.


TCK DAxIELs's ExHAusTrvE EXAMINATION or
rHx ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN sUsTAIS-
ING JUSTICE B,RRETrs RULINGS.
THE concurrence of ala the judges In sustaining the
decisions Justice Barrett. all the n-natnanous
material points passed upon during the Trial 10 inc
highest encominm could be passed upon the ability
mparaiity and knowledge OF the Law OF that leainsd
ursf AL the points Of Importance male py Justce
Potter opinion rendered. when he granted stay Oh
proceedings pending the appel are completely over
ruled. For every point of the decision convincing
reasons given, and objection raised or hnteo
at by the and able counsel Cor the PRISONER Is
closely examined and fully passed upon.
The exhaustive opinion OF Justice Daniels Is on 120
closely written pages OF legal paper The Justice IN
the first part OF his opinion states the against
Sharp as ii presented IN the indictment that ne
was guilty Of the OF bribery by giving Ladelph A.
PulgTan Of the Aldermen Of 1854, $4,000 as the
price of his vote.
He next oepsiders the point made by defence that
Fugraa testimony sh.ald have been submitted to
the jury, ground that he was self-confessed
perjurer The effect this would have been to destroy
con pletely for the prosecution, as Fugrafs
testimony was an essential element therein. Justice
Daniels that point and draws the distinction
between man who is simply guilty. ami who has
been convicted of perjury. He that section No.
s3z Of the Code sreaty brosens the old law and
that Fungran having been convicted OF perjury
1t was perfectly proper for Justice Barrett to allow the
lit
sHARP's MOTIVES FORM ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.
The Judge revie vs. atsome length shsrps connection
with the project Of building surface railroad in Broad
WAY and holds that bribery trials the habta motives
and nsens the defendant important elements in
inducing Jury to arrive at true conclusion
For twenty years. remarks Justice Daniels Sharp had
been striving get railroad Ia Broadway. As the last
great act In drama OF his life. be charged with
bribing member of the Board Of Aldermen. ALI testi
mony relating prior acts In his life bearing upon that
matter admissible BY this rule the testimony of
Pote, the sngrossng CLERK Of the Assembly. 70 the
eject that Sharp had offered him to change the
language of . bill relating to street railroads In New
York was admissible So the testimony TO the
raising If 100000 by mortgage and the sale Of rhe
bon by Sharp for large bills such afterward cAne
into of Fugraf and other Aldermen and
the contract with Sharp build the Broadway Surface
road for q much larger sum than the work was really
worth.
All these things tended to the conviction in the
minds of the jury that he was guilty Of the crime
charged.
Tho testimony as regards De Lacey and Keenan, the
opinion holds to be admissible Concerning the sbee-
op made to the admission Of Politics. testimony, that
tended establiAh the fact that the defendant
been guilty Of another crime than that charged in the
Indictment, Justice Daniels says:
of snos ers Ss me aiso han
es,1Is the CHARGED insi him In tho indictments
rheIps tended % derendant dstsr.
a. a. ' a., ss t bsa a. in ssS
% 20
nsht ana privilege wer secured A., ,.a.,.. .,.,.,,.
prei.S,nty would Re .ailnr parohs.. T. =:
in srron phslng had vsw. :. Il distinct,
prsssnt io motive which 10 great sxens bad setaAssd
ssnes. The Il these which
asa The asa and TACT
reason .y tSs sSssse s.a BE- encasd fSss was sSs
fnii Of the eIens;ani himself
JUSTICE BARRETrs CAUTIOUS CHARGE.
Continuing upon this potut Judge Daniels says:
trial judge carefully charged
the y s Ro 20 ;ss ys s
guard ths jury agsn. any IMPROPER they
Il has ossn saia In sns~"r to thu. position tina. all the
jurors would aseted by IL msht
Ss, wSil s' such '' asoas have sometimes been
given scneernn. The ,raI Of eriinn,, sa.s They w.re
isisases, !. ,hsy JaISrs
aud and they ,Es
.ssssS he s 1 spsss
. z comply aas' Win nsy ~ s
Having disposed Of all these preliminary questions
Judge Daniels next considers the great queson of the
Ielianeeths admission Of the testimony siven at tho
Senate invsstixs,ien in 1855 He revi.ws at
quo<es ali the leading thai have bean decided
.er meass to say si Legislative tina
ties. imony that man might give REGARDING q crime
shoud Lot be used against him Ia subsequAnt vrosecu
ton.
testify. He dtd refuse II he had refused and
this cesittee had cmpelled hun to TESTIFY, thun tina
objection taken by the defence weud have been seod
All this testfaony before the committees voluntary
He chose u give It, mud therefore he cannot
plain tnat il was used against him.
ATKcHSIcAL ERROR or LAW POINTED OUT.
In regard to the objections taken to sx- Alderman
laillers testimony, the Justice says:
paymest leg 5000 T. him by De LcyJ OF the
broadway Rajlroa Company, and replied that had
OF that kind Ho then asked what his
defendant; bot the amt excepted
he howeyer. sfat~d that there
thai there was nothing said about u which
thea ads 81 Mnisr thou rhf
to him for. The peraittsd that
was put rspiisd that he supposed {r tho sfoad
way rsd although ,Lsrs was no coa'rses satsrsd into
sIrctiy SPEAKING ruling answer
what tho thoughf u 70 The dignity
q evidences Is aenef aud recctved In courts Of justice
Bnt while 10 errenesas 10 psrnt tbs qusstan 70 DO
answered. the answer that was obtained was not
ave pr,3uiieed the defendant for q mere
act In The case u saT ans intricate trial az this
RAH be that slight ami formal
siil mtervene Antn The Judgment scni BE- reversed be-
nnse u the cserecress OF tscast objections Of this
hsr.ctss in cases Of
his desrx;pto essary fail 70
oee the ehrcts Of tho Of tho
elsffnx feermfeal procsesifn
Tia Jndre holds rsst Jusies Barrett properly SLOWED
~ -. Nal.